Individual Rights and the Political Process

"Individual Rights and the Political Process: A Proposed Framework for
Democracy Defining Cases" by Walter M. Frank

ABSTRACT

For more than four decades, since Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court has
been shaping our democracy in important ways. Among other things, it has
approved numerous state laws directed against third parties and
independent candidacies, accepted incumbent protection as a
redistricting principle, ended the movement for term limits for
congressional representatives, eliminated most political patronage,
prohibited laws aimed at limiting campaign expenditures, and decided a
presidential election. These and other democracy defining cases are
often decided on the basis of First Amendment and Equal Protection
arguments that do not adequately address the democratic tensions in
these cases, resulting in opinions that, because they miss the critical
choices the cases present, have failed to create a coherent body of law.

This article proposes that the Court should treat democracy defining
cases as a discrete category applying heightened scrutiny to state and
federal regulations that undermine a framework of specified procedural
objectives based on the concept of the freely given consent of the
governed . Part I shows why traditional methods of analysis have
proved inadequate for these cases. It also describes the proposed
framework itself. Part II then critically analyzes important Supreme
Court cases, mostly decided over the last fifteen years, addressing
issues of ballot access, voter participation in primaries,
redistricting, campaign finance, term limits, and debate inclusiveness,
to show why the proposed framework would have produced decisions both
more pragmatic (because more concerned with practical consequences) and
more principled ( because based on a recognized set of procedural
objectives.)

Table of Contents

Part I - The Proposed Framework
The Need for the Framework
Description of the Framework

Discussing how the Supreme Court approaches constitutional issues of
democracy, Richard Pildes has written: "A significant problem in this
body of law, in my view, is not that the Court has the wrong functional
view of how democracy ought to be understood; it is that the Court
refuses to approach these issues in functional terms at all. Instead,
the law of democracy remains one of the last bastions of legal formalism
in constitutional law."

This article implicitly embraces the criticism of Professor Pildes. It
has proposed a framework providing a benchmark of procedural objectives
intended to assure the legitimacy of governmental decisions based on the
freely given consent of the governed. The need for such a framework of
democratic objectives is rooted in (1) the special nature of political
rights in which individuals and groups are players in a larger system,
our electoral system, whose continued success is the foundation of all
our rights; and (2) the simple fact that the traditional tools of legal
analysis ( text and discovery of intent) and modes of interpretation (
originalism and deference to legislative majorities) are largely useless
in analyzing democracy defining cases. To support our arguement, we
analyzed a number of key Supreme Court decisions to point out
deficiencies in the Court's treatment of these cases and to show how our
proposed standard might have assisted the Court.

Ultimately, of course, the kind of democracy we enjoy and its continued
survival depend upon ourselves; that's what self-government means. But
the
Supreme Court now plays an important role in helping to define the
rules of our democracy. This article has tried to show that a different
approach to democracy defining cases is both possible and needed and
should over time result in a body of decisions both more principled
because animated by an agreed upon view of our political system and more
pragmatic because focused on the requirement of that system.

I have registered for Mr. Walter M. Frank's lecture at Princeton
Adult
School, beginning Feb 11 for 6 sessions. I am excited at my chance to
hear him in person. So cheers.

The most fierce ideology crash was depicted by Michael Davies' book "The
Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty"

The cover design is based on a comment by Henri Fesquet in his book "The
Drama of Vatican II, which had an enthusiastic introduction for American
readers by Michael Novak, who explained that:"From the beginning M.
Fesquet knew what was at stake in the Council. His friendship with many
of the Council's leading theologians and churchmen, particularly from
France, gave him an entree denied to nearly all other journalists...He
set the mark against which other journalists of the world in reporting
the Council measured themselves. Fesquet's judgement on the Council
(which is quoted on page 100 reads:

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. This liberation of Catholic thought,
too long imprisoned in the negative tide of the Counter Reformation, in
a way enables the Church to take up the standard of the French
Revolution, which make the rounds of the secular world before coming to
rest in Catholicism, whence it originated. Liberty, equality,
fraternity: this glorious motto was the quintessence of Vatican II as
Hans Kung recently suggested.

DEDICATION
This book is dedicated to the memory of Monsignor Joseph Clifford
Fenton, Editor of The American Ecclesiastical Review 1944-1963, Whose
clear, consistent, and courageous defence of Papal Teaching on Church
and State Must once again be vindicated as the authentic Catholic
Position. Magna est Veritas et Pravalet

AN HISTORIC CONFRONTATION

On 18 Nov. 1965, Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., took part in two
celebrations. He had received a personal invistation from Pope Paul VI
to join with a humber of other theologians in concelebrating Mass with
him in St. Peter's Basilica. The second celebration took the form of a
champagne party.
In the January 1964 issue of The American Ecclesiastical Review a
brief announcement had stated that its Editor-in-chief for twenty five
years, Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, had 'resigned because of poor
health." The two events were not unconnected.
Msgr. Fenton and Fr. Murray had opposed each other in a longstanding
and sometimes bitter debate which had lasted for more than a decade. The
champagne party on 18 Nov. 1965 celebrated the total victory of Fr.
Murray. Theories which his superiors had forbidden him to propagate in
1955 would be promulgated as the offical teaching of the Second Vatican
Council within a few weeks ( on 7 Dec. 1965). Yesterday's heresy had
become today's orthodoxy.
Msgr. Fenton and Fr. Murray had both been invited to attend the
Council as experts (periti). They confronted each other in a dramatic
and fateful meeting on 11 Nov. 1963. A draft statement on religious
liberty compiled by Cadinal Bea's Unity Secretariat was to be included
as Chapter V of the schema (draft document) on ecumenism. Certain
members of the Council's Theological Commission considered that the
draft contradicted the traditional papal teaching on religious liberty
so flagrantly that they did not wish it to be restored to the Council
agenda from which it had been removed. What "was perhaps the most
important meeting in the history of the religious liberty issue" took
place on II Nov. 1963. The full Commission met to debate the issue with
a number of periti in attendance. Fr. Murray has described the meeting
himself:

Ottaviani, however, called first on Rahner, then on one or two others.
Bishop (subsequently Cardinal) Wright introduced my name again, amid
other murmurs of approval and invitation, and I got to make my speech -
face to face with Ottaviani, with Msgr. Fenton at the end of the periti
table. The final vote was 18-5 - a glorious victory for the Good Guys."
The meeting lasted from 4:30 to 7:00. And it was pretty tense from the
beginning to end...

This decisive vote made the ultimate triumph of Fr. Murray and the
downfall of Msgr. Fenton inevitable. Msgr. Fenton had consistently and
resolutely upheld the traditional Catholic teaching on the question of
religious liberty. As a result of the Liberal triumph at this meeting,
opinions which he had denounced as untenable would almost certainly be
adopted by the Council, and placed before the faithful as official
teaching. A priest of Msgr. Fenton's moral and intellectual stature
could hardly have been expected to make a complete volte-face and uphold
Fr. Murray's views as authentic Catholic teaching. He resigned as editor
of The American Ecclesiastical Review within a few weeks of the meeting.

The five members of the Theological Commission who opposed the
inclusion of the Religious Liberty text on the Council agenda were
Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Browne, Cardinal Santos of Manila, Cardinal
Florit of Florence, and Archbishop Parente of the Curia.

O God who, by the merits and teaching
Of Blessed Dominic Thy Confessor,
hast been pleased to enlighten Thy Church:
grant that through his prayers
she may not be deprived of temporal help,
and may continually advance in spiritual growth.

p56.
In his encyclical Mirari vos (1832), Pope Gregory XVI warned against the
danger of indifferentism...
The Pope went on to explain that:

...Ah, 'What more disastrous death for souls than the liberty of error,"
said St. Augustine. In seeing thus removal from men of every restraint
capable of keeping them on the paths of truth, led as they already are
to their ruin by a natural inclination to evil, We state in truth that
the pit of hell is opened from which St. John depicted a smoke which
obscured the sun and from which locusts emerged to devastate the earth.
This is the cause of the lack of intellectual stability; this is the
cause of the continually increasing corruption of young people; this is
what causes people to despise sacred rights, the most holy objects and
laws. This is the cause, in a word, of the most deadly flail which could
ravage states; for experience proves, and the most remote antiquity
teaches us, that in order to bring about the destruction of the richest,
the most powerful, the most glorious, and the most flourishing states,
nothing is necessary beyond unrestricted liberty of opinion, that
freedom of public expression, that infatuation with novelty.

In the second half of the twentieth century, the absolute liberty of
expression condemned by Pope Gregory XVI has been elevated to the status
of the supreme good in the so-called free countries, and the result is
turning out to be exactly what he predicted. If Western civilization is
destroyed it will have been from within, not from without.

Essays on the Affinity between Philosophy and Literature
by Richard Kuhns

p255.
III
If the world exists as a text ( e.g. Papal encyclical & Chairman Mao's
Redbook), what becomes of me ? ( Catholic Christian & Chairman Mao's
communist). Both philosophical analysis of language, as worked out in
the Tractatus, and poetic analysis of language as explored by Valery
stress the critical issue of the self. What has language to do with the
'I' of experience and consciousness when it is used to speak about the
world and about experience? Explaining the way the self, subject, or 'I'
participates in and defines experience is a problem to which both
Wittgenstein and Valery gave thought. Responding to this interest,
Wittgenstein interrupts the logical inquiry of the Tractatus with this
assertion:

5.632 The subject does not belong to the world: rather, it is a limit of
the world.

As the eye does not see itself, and nothing in the visual field
demonstrate that it is seen by the eye, so the 'I' of consciousness is
not an object of consciousness. The only way the self legitimately gets
into philsophy is through the notion of 'the world' for

5.641 What brings the self into philosophy is the fact that 'the world
is my world.'

The philosophical self is not the human being, the human body, or the
human soul, with which psychology deals, but rather the metaphysical
subject, the limit of the world - not a part of it.

Wittgenstein's effort to define a concept, 'the philosophical self,' to
be distinguished from 'the psychological self' and presumably other
interpretations of 'self,' introduces a philosophical theme essential to
his interpretation of experience. The self is the limit of my world, and
my world is an interconnected series of linguistic events; therefore,
the whole issue of the self falls outside philosophy, into that realm of
the 'unutterable' to which the Tractatus consigns the most important
questions insofar as they have to do with our moral, aesthetic, and
religious values. As we might expect, values fall outside the
philosophical world too.

6.4 All propositions are of equal value.

6.41 The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world
everything is as it is, and everything happens as it does happen: in it
no value exists - and if it did, it would have no value.

If there is any value that does have value, it must lie outside the
whole sphere of what happens and is the case. For all that happens and
is the case is accidental....

6.374 Even if all that we wish for were to happen, still this would only
be a favor granted by fate, so to speak: for there is no logical
connexion between the will and the world, which would guarantee it, and
the supposed physical connexion itself is surely not something that we
could will.

6.43 If good or bad acts of will do alter the world, it can only be the
limits of the world that they alter, not the facts, not what can be
expressed by means of language.

The world of the happy man is a different one from that of the unhappy
man. ..

The poetic interpretation of language temperamentally closest to
Wittgenstein's is that of Paul Valery, whose interest in a poetic theory
of linguistic objectivism I have already alluded to. It will be useful
at this point once again to consider Valery's conception of language,
for here a sense of the self analogous to Wittgenstein's is explored.

... the poetic state or emotion seems to me to consist in a dawning
perception, a tendency toward perceiving a world, or complete system of
relations, in which beings, things, events, and acts, although they may
resemble, each to each, those which fill and form the tangible world -
the immediate world from which they are borrowed - stand, however, in an
indefinable, but wonderfully accurate, relationship to the modes and
laws of our general sensibility. So, the value of these well-known
objects and beings is in some way altered. They respond to each other
and combine quite otherwise than in ordinary conditions. They become -
if you will allow the expression - musicalized somehow commensurable,
echoing each other. the poetic universe defined in this way bears a
strong analogy to the universe of dream.

Adoration knows not how and when it is seeded.
Once it sprouts
it has a life of its own and knows no bounds
Living is dead, dead is so alive.
If what lives can not accompany what is dead,
and what is dead can not reseed and do loving thee
both have not reached the fullness of one cosmic breath

Lovers of the dream, why it has to be not real?
it is not like this world is devoid of dreamers,
so why not?
( dwell on what you have and have not? )

You sent me this link on Advogato via Linked In. Apparently all the above verbiage comes down to the question you enclosed: "Why the requirement of celibacy for ordained Catholic church priest is NOT a violation of human rights yet the one-child policy promoted by Chinese government to its citizenship is a violation of human rights? what differed exactly?"

**

Answer: Its not mandatory to be a Catholic priest. If you don't want to be celibate get out of the clergy of this denomination of Christianity.

By corollary, I'd be hard pressed to see you shed your Chinese DNA or your status as female.

watched Obama's State of the Union address and Virginia governor's
speech last night. Inspired by both leaders American opportunistic
vision. Also media 'pundit', Shields and Brooks said, 'we take Obama's
'media pundit' remark personally'. That is the true spirit in 'the
lightness of being'

Here's my two cents in regards of this 'State of the Union'

1. Marriage is NOT A GAY matter.
It is a 'grave' matter and a spiritual one.

2. Support Obama's initiative of allowing proud gay Americans to serve
in our armed forces, under the condition that GAY COUPLE or GAY
THREESOME must BOTH and ALL apply and serve if qualified.

Notwithstanding all the other unrelated verbiage, the statement that "It is NOT mandatory to be a Chinese citizen. Japan Parliament is considering to extend voting rights to Korean Japanese.
Chinese government promote 1 child policy. You can have as many children as you want but they won't get into public school/ government job etc..."

1. begs the question of Human rights in China relative to ones elective choice to be a member of the clergy of a given religion on the topic of celibacy.
2. moreover has neither substantiation or relevance to any aspect of moral considerations of the one-child policy, whether in Korea or otherwise.

Your rebuttal was in reference to your statement that since it is unfair for a Catholic priest to marry, why is this any different than a human rights violation by China with regard to the one-child policy.

The interjection about the State of the Union on Gay marriage relative to the assertion that it is somehow "grave" and spiritual is meaningless and otherwise without context.

The assertion that any party to a Gay social commitment must make a concurrent commitment to serve in the military if one elects to do so is as pointless as it is ridiculous, not to mention having no relevance to the original topic. Does the wife in a heterosexual couple serve in the military if the husband enlists?

Marriage is a religious institution with a religious definition. The state is foreclosed from upholding matters of religion in the balance between church and state. The real problem is that U.S. Government and the state governments downstream recognize, support, authorize, or otherwise license the act in any way relative to any special benefits that the law allows or disallows.

I am writing this memo 'A blonde joke' at work for circulation among
non-union members. Will I be in trouble?

"I was offering many critiques on the qualities of the boss at work, my
Italo Calvino lover interrupted me. 'Italians don't need to be qualified
for anything. As long as you know he is Italian, treat him like he is
the boss and you'll have a happy chap to repeat orders faithfully till
his last breath."

I lamented, 'Oh, no wonder they are changing the rule on the fly. Now I
need to be 60 of age, instead of 55 to make my dream come true.'

'What is your dream?'

'Whip smart, pro dominatrix'

'That's it! You can apply for the leading role in hollywood horror film.
You can be the next precious supporting actress'

'Butt...but, I am afraid the official reward was granted along the line
of 'May our
troops come home safe!'

I. We have briefly discussed various perspectives on interpreting the
Constitution. These include (1) originalism (faithfulness to the
original or intent of the Constitution); (2) the moral reading of the
Constitution (stressing the Constitution's borader principles that each
generation must apply in its own way to arrive at the best possible
decisions); (3) majritarianism (deference to the judgement of law making
bodies unless their actions clearly violate the Constitution); (4)
democracy reinforcement (stresses that the Court is not to review
substantive law for rationality but must assure that the democratic
process is working well and gives minorities and disfavored groups the
ability to influence the elective process); (5) minimalism ( a
preference for opinions that are narrow and fact (as opposed to theory)
driven; (6) pragmatism ( a willingness to consider the consequences of
the Court's decisions as an important factor in the Court's decisions);
(7) principled decision making ( a preference for the development of
clear rules that allow constitutional laaw to be as objective and
predictable as possible).

Questions:
(a) Which of these perspectives would you find most congenial if you
were on the court?

(b) Which, if any, of these perspectives do you believe complement each
other and which, if any, are antagonistic to each other?

(c)Which of these perspectives would have best accommodated a different
result in the DeShaney v. Winneago County case? (That was the case in
which a majority of the Court held that the liberty interest in the
Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process clause does not impose a duty on
governmental actors to protect private citizens from harming each other
when the government itself has not contributed to causing the danger)

II. To what extent should Justices deem themselves to be bound by
precedent in interpreting constitutional law?

III. Do you believe that there is a constitutional right of same sex
marriage protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause
or some other provision of the Constitution? Do you believe that this is
a case in which the Court should apply strict scrutiny? Let's assume
that you conclude that there is such a right, are there any factors that
might militate against your finding in favor of such a right?

----------------------------------------------------
Books recommended and circulated during the class on March 24th

almost finished 'The annotated U.S. Constitution and declaration of
independence" edited by Jack N. Rakove. Sent a copy of his other book
'Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution
' to Peter for his presumably failed campaign to be elected as the
Mascot of Flippin high school in AK.

I.
Questions:
(a) Which of these perspectives would you find most congenial if you
were on the court?

Principled decision making (7) and Moral reading (2)

(b) Which, if any, of these perspectives do you believe complement
each
other and which, if any, are antagonistic to each other?

Principled decision-making and Moral reading are compatible.
Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson was written more or less
from those two perspectives.

Originalism, Pragmatism were exercised by James Madison in the writing
of Constitution in 1787.

Majoritarianism, Democracy reinforcement were not applicable before
1787. They are antagonistic to four of my preferred perspectives, namely
principle-decision making, moral reading, originalism and pragmatism.
Minimalism complements preferred four perspectives if exercising
preferred four isn't enough

(c) Which of these perspectives would have best accommodated a
different
result in the DeShaney v. Winneago County Case?

Answer:
None. DeShaney case is a perfect example that shows limits of
justice.

No law CAN guarantee liberty nor claims to life. No law CAN replace
actions exercised in full faith and force by a free and righteous man.
Only a free and righteous man CAN save life and preserve humanity for
ALL that comes after him.

II. To what extent should Justice deem themselves to be bound by
precedent
in interpreting Constitutional Law?

To the extent that precedent in the light of case re-examined is
agreeable to their religious views, their personal conscience and their
moral defense in the name of People of United States.

III. Do you believe that there is a constitutional right of same sex
marriage protected by the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause or some
other provision of the Constitution? Do you believe that this is a case in
which the Court should apply strict scrutiny? Let's asssume that you
conclude that there is such a right, are there any factors that might
militate against your finding in favor of such a right?

No, I do NOT believe there is a right of same sex marriage protection.
No, I believe it is MOST ridiculous that ANY constitution of a nation
should be bothered by sex orientation of individuals.

If there is such a right to equal protection of same sex marriage, I shall
propose that procreation of human race be done without human love and
human intercourse and human sacrifice as I've known it from my cultural
heritage whatsoever.

If I need to provide rationale to support the same sex marriage under
the equal protection clause in the existing 14th US Constitutional
Amendments 14th, the best I've come up with is this.

1. Divorce is permissible anywhere in US for traditional marriage.

2. For a woman abused, neglected, threatened by her husband, she has the
right to seek protection from government to grant a divorce.

3. For a single gay man or lesbian woman, that unloving single status
is perceived as 'abusive, negligence and cruel' once he or she fell in
love with another person. She has the equal right to seek protection
from government to grant a divorce from that single unloving state of
being and into a union/loving relationship with another beloved person.

4. If gay bashing has never been a US cultural taboos in the past, no
lesbian/gay persons will have this fear from the general public and the
government agencies.

Therefore, it is conceivable, for the best interest of ALL People, US
Supreme Court should stay away from arguing 'the equal protection' as a
disguise of promoting gay marriage unless it is clear WHAT is at stake
and WHAT need to be protected from abuse and extinction on both ends of
human emotional scales.

'It has been accurately said that the Eleventh Amendment and state
sovereign immunity create "a Byzantine aggregation of rules and
doctrines." recent decisions have created a "maze of precedents that
only a specialist could navigate with confidence." This Part seeks to
describe the recent cases that have created this muddle, beginning with
Seminole Tribe v. Florida, decided in 1996, and ending with Tennessee v.
Lane, decided in 2004. Throughout, there has been a trend toward
reinvigorating state sovereign immunity, but repeated concessions have
also made clear that the federal government retains significant ways to
achieve its ends.

The Constitution's recognition of state sovereign immunity, of course,
did not originate with the Rehnquist Court, but with the Eleventh
Amendment in 1798...

why Health Care should be deemed MOST important as a federal initiative
instead of State ?

1. Constitution is a document. Constitutional Law is the application
of the document to cases and controversies; the national judiciary is
only empowered to hear cases and controversies; it does not give advice.
(i.e. Jefferson and Washington once asked Chief Justice for some treaty
advice and was denied such request)

2. Constitutional Law asks the same question in many different ways
and in many different contexts: Has the Government acted within the
Constitution?

3. These questions are not easily answered for many reasons -
foremost among them are (1) it is an old document, often being applied
to situations never envisioned; (2) phrases like 'privileges and
immunities" "due process" and "equal protection" are capable of many
meanings; (3) there are built in tensions within the document - for
example, there is a tension between the right to a fair trial and
freedom of the press; (4) there are fundamentally different approaches
to interpreting the Constitution, reflecting to some degree differences
in values of Justices and even different understandings of the purpose
of the Constitution.

4. The Court has no power to declare state acts or laws
unconstitutional unless they violate the U.S. Constitution.

5. When the Constitution declares something unconstitutional, it
creates a national constitutional rule binding on all the States.

6. The Court has neither the power of the purse nor the power of the
sword.

7. The Court has two primary tasks: (1) adjudicating questions of
individual rights and (2) overseeing the constitutional structure. The
first task involves the application of the Bill of Rights and the
Fourteenth Amendment to particular cases; the second task involves the
Court in assuring that principles such as separation of powers and
federalism are properly adhered to and in defining the scope of national
power.

8. The Constitution does not specifically provide for a right in the
Supreme Court to declare acts of Congress or the State unconstitutional.
The Court under Justice Marshall asserted this right, first in the
famous case of Marbury v. Madison, later in the case of Martin v.
Hunter's Lessee. Moreover, Congress has the authority, under the
Constitution, to limit the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.

9. 5 to 4 decisions are not unusual and indeed some of the Court's
most important decisions, including the Slaughterhouse cases, Lochner v.
New York, the Gold Clause cases, and Miranda v. Arizona, have been
decided by 5 to 4.

10. Nevertheless, in the last decade, the number of five to four
decisions has reached epidemic proportions. More than 50 important
constitutional law decisions have been decided in the last decade by a
five to four vote; most of those decisions have pitted a liberal faction
versus a conservative faction, with either Justice Kennedy or Justice
O'Connor providing the swing vote or votes. Whoever gets to pick Justice
Kennedy's successor might well decide the future direction of
constitutional law for the next fifteen or twenty years.

But Joe, having quickly lost support from Chuck Schumer, has
literally named this affront to the Constitution the "Terrorist
Expatriation Act" -- or, "the TEA Act." Hey, I wonder which reactionary
white populists he's looking to appeal to with a name like that?

Alice, is white Queen or Red Queen afraid of the TEA party?

Seriously, what Joe needs to do is to start a third Party representing
'Terrorist Expatriation Army' in support of Lewis 'The
Bill of No rights'

by Ruth Wedgwood
Ruth Wedgwood is the Burling professor of international law at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and a member of the Hoover Institution Task Force on Law and National Security.

NJ Sen. Cory Booker said he believed in Ferguson process. Trust the system?This guy is softer than marshmallows.

NJ Gov Christie should spend time in gestation crate like pigs. Slimmed Shady continues to amaze with veto of NJ pork bill.

Today, I bought Trentonian from Wawa. The frontpage was a piece by Mr. Parker:

'System unfortunately swings the same for Wilson and Simpson'
"Well let me tell you something brother. When the giant hit the ground he felt the wrath of Darren Wilson. This same "5-year-old" police officer managed to win the wrestle off for his weapon against the demon Brown.

That's exceedingly over the top rope. People who claim that a Ferguson grand jury served up proper justice, those who wholeheartedly believe in the system, must, too, accept the Simpson acquittal and set him free from this dirty deed.

who is this lady ?
"Her grandfather was a St. Louis cop, and her father was killed in a confrontation with police in 1995." She tells Daily Mail:... Surely, this could be verified if K5 comes to my AID? No?

New Advogato Features

New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser
code is live. It needs further work but already handles most
markup better than the original parser.